9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Directorate (ED) issued a memorandum of show cause notice (SCN) to the Appellant No.1 Shree Acids and Chemicals Ltd. (SACL) as well two of its Directors Ravi Mittal (Appellant No.2) and Sandeep Mittal, asking them to show cause as to why adjudicating proceedings should not be initiated against them for acting in contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for failure to furnish the exchange control copy of bill of entry in confirmation of having imported materials for which a sum of foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 1,65,19,908.85 was remitted to the account of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g its affairs. 5. By the Adjudication Order dated 10th September 2003 (AO), the Special Director ('SD'), ED held that in relation to six bills of entries mentioned in SCN at serial Nos. 1,2,4,5,6 and 7 there was confirmation by the PNB by its letter dated 7th August 2003 of having received the alternate copies and therefore no action was called for. As regards transactions at serial no. 3 and 8 of the SCN of the value of US$174000 (which pertained to the fertilizer division of SACL) and US$20,000 (pertaining to the paper division), since the noticee could not produce any evidence of the imports there was contrave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eep Mittal were concerned it was held that although the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) by the letter dated 12th April 2005 exempted SACL from submitting documentation, the AT was of the view that SACL was liable for contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) FERA. It was held that the RBI could not supersede the AO since it had no power so far as taking of remittance of foreign exchange is concerned. The merits of the appeals filed by the fertiliser division of the SACL and Ravi Mittal were, however, not discussed by the AT. 9. Aggrieved by the above order, the present appeal has been filed by the fertilizer division of SACL an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals. Having considered the explanation offered by the Appellants for the delay in filing their respective appeals, the Court is of the view that the delay was for bonafide reasons and ought to be condoned. 12. The Court notes that the question of the consequences of the failure to make the pre-deposit has been considered by the AT in the context of FERA and not FEMA. Secondly, the merits of the appeals have been considered only in relation to one of the transactions of the paper division of SACL involving US$20,000 and not the other transaction at serial No.8 of the SCN, concerning the fertiliser division of SACL valued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
